Ya Can’t Make This Stuff Up!

_{Barry Arrington

February 9, 2012

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In response to my last post DrREC wrote: “what is Barry Arrington’s exposure to the practice of science that trumps that of a scientist who has “been around the scientific block” as he put it?”

This is unintentionally hilarious. In the post I criticized scientists who appeal to authority instead of evidence and logic. DrREC, a scientist, responds by . . . wait for it . . . wait for it . . . an appeal to authority! Beautiful. Thank you REC.

Comments

markf, As far as I know she has never contributed to the debate at antievolution.org. She's there, mark. And she happily tolerates it all without a word, just as I said. Just as she tolerated it at Myers' venue, just as she tolerates it whenever it comes up. I don't have much respect for someone who acts superficially nice, but who turns a blind eye to that sort of obsessive abuse. The day an admin at UD starts doling out that kind of crap is the day I object, if I see it, and if this place every became halfway what AtBC is, I'll just walk. I doubt it will happen. There's a name for a person who is giggly and nice when they discuss things with people, but who stands by and lets nasty crap be said against the same people without a word. The name isn't "nice". It's "two-faced".nullasalus_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
11:59 PM
11
11
59
PM
PDT}

Eigenstate, That’s the thing, it’s just a surreal conversation. You think, it appears, that science is “Big Brother”. How? Where? I've made two pretty tame points. First, science != scientists. Second, scientists are human. They are not animated entirely by purely scientific concerns. They have metaphysical points of view they protect, political views they privilege, personal goals, etc. Some times, even many times, they can put these aside. Other times, it doesn't matter if they do or don't. Still other time sthey can honest mistakes. And at even other times, they can BS, individually or as a group. That's my view, and it's in accord with everything I've said on this topic. So when you say... This is the kind of conspiracy theorist mindset that drags a potentially serious discussion toward silly. ...You're just blowing smoke. You're painting a picture of what you want to think of me as saying, what you hope others will think I'm saying, and what you damn well need me to say to feel better. You'll search in vain in these threads to find me alleging 'grand conspiracy' of any kind. The strongest words I had came in the form of a Max Planck quote. So, swing and a miss. I'd say nice try, but c'mon. It wasn't. Again, reading you in context, worried about a chaotic, somewhat anarchic “cesspool” and then worrying about “Big Brother”, in THIS thread. Heh. I didn't "worry about Big Brother". You're the one who alluded to "Orwellian" language coming from myself. I replied that it seemed like you were the one engaging in deceptive reasoning. That was it. And really, we're seeing it here right now: somehow you translated that into 'ohhhh Nullasalus thinks there's a biiiiiig scaaaary science Pope'. Nah. I never said anything that could even be reasonably interpreted in that way. I said - shock of shocks - that scientists are human. In a previous conversation in this thread, I compared idealizing scientists to idealizing politicians. But its for a righteous cause, you’re doing the Lord’s work after all. It’s like your slaughtering the Midianites, after all. It’s just sort making the world suck in a way that fisting jokes never could, for anyone who can beyond a Church Lady kind of prudishness. Swing and a miss again. Have you even read the sort of things I've written on ID? A refresher course. * I don't think ID is science, though this is qualified by my saying I don't think no-ID is science either. Identifications of design, positive of negative, are outside the realm of science together - or they're inside together. This catches me hell from all sides. * What ID posts I've given on here have largely involved A) defending theistic evolutionists and defending Thomists in *rejecting* intelligent design while trying to find a middle ground, and B) trying to promote discussion of atheistic versions of small-d intelligent design: Bostrom simulation theory as one example, John Gribbin's speculation on universe designers in a multiverse setting as another example, etc. I intend to write up a post soon on Brian Greene's discussion of universe simulations in his latest multiverse book. I also think that atheistic versions of ID are going to be the Next Big Thing on the topic. (Well, 'atheistic'. Status of deities in a simulation is a topic unto itself.) So, third time, swing and a miss, back to the dugout. I'm Catholic, but my interest in ID is precisely due to it being religiously neutral. Yes, I'm quite aware some people use ID as an apologetics tool. And plenty of atheists (see your cesspool) use evolution as an apologetics tool. Ho hum. So, if you want to talk about decency toward homosexuals, you are in the gutter hanging with the culture you do, right here. You have no idea what my views on homosexual behavior are, and frankly, your clumsy attempt to paint me with the brush you're using not only fails - it establishes you as quite a punk and a hypocrite besides. Go tolerate the "queer" jokes at your cesspool and write it all off as "well I bet they vote the right way, and that makes it okay", but don't try to project your guilty conscience onto me. As for this site, if there's been some major dustup about homosexuality on here, I haven't seen it - always possible, I suppose. More likely, though, you're just swinging at phantoms: 'some people are ID sympathetic, therefore they must all be creationists, and also must hate people with same-sex attraction, because that's the crazy stereotype I roll with'. Roll with it, keep being wrong. Ain't my concern. By the way - prude? No, eigen, not at all. It's about civility, respect and maturity, since what we're talking about is discussion and debate. I know, shocking idea to you, this thought that perhaps you should have some standards when it comes to how you talk about or treat other people. If I want gay jokes, mockery and disgust, I'll grab a Garth Ennis comic. When you want it, apparently you'll just head to AtBC. Can't blame you, though the actual quality is pretty low. Arrington’s publishing of DrREC’s personal info was execrable, but even so, it doesn’t really go to the real problem here. Because I won't find personal info published at AtBC? There's not people there who openly talk about digging up personal info on people, putting up their pictures and everything? Like I said, I've got you beat at your own game. Anyone who hits the antievolution forum is going to see rotten behavior that makes UD, at its legendary worst, look like an online Mister Rogers fanclub. Your big defense is to suggest that if I were to sign up, I won't be banned. Sure, you guys just shout everyone down, mock them, scream, yell, and collude. It's a rotten, sad place, and there's nothing of intellectual value there. Yes, I know, you all have quite a high opinion of yourselves - so does every internet pissant. There is a serious effort, spread all over your blog, to engage and discredit ID ON THE MERITS. There is not a corresponding response, on the whole, with a few notable and laudable exceptions that unfortunately do nothing more than prove the rule. Not really. Oh, there are some good arguments here and there, but also some great counter-arguments and replies - don't get me wrong, this place does host some good discussions now and then. As to your estimation of the responses, sorry - I'm a TE, and I disagree. Yes, I know, your gaggle of moonbats over at AtBC think otherwise, but sadly, their views don't have much merit. Nor are their contributions of much value. Try to understand, eigen: you guys have shown yourselves as not being worth the time of day, much less respect, by your actions at that craphole. And we're talking years and years of actions there. It's easy to find criticisms of ID, so it's not like you guys are some particularly valuable commodity. You're just like everyone else - a bunch of people on the internet. But look how you all behave. I keep saying it: to go to your site, and read through your thread, is to bolster my point. But congratulations: you managed, as apparently self-appointed cesspool spokesman, make yourselves look even more pathetic. You admit that AtBC is pretty much a non-stop angsting, hateful, making-it-personal forum. It's been going on for years. Think about it, eigen: years and years of just babbling and hating people and bitching about being banned (what, half a decade ago in some cases?) and... etc. You not only condone the behavior, but you cop to it and apparently think it's great. And they say theists have delusions. Wrongheaded? Are you kidding me??? That’s exactly what I’m trying to point to. That’s a clown’s answer. No, it's actually a reasonable person's answer. See, not everyone needs to flip out like they're having a seizure just because someone says something they consider to be scientifically wrong, even dead wrong. Screaming and ranting and raving is - wait for it - not necessary. Even counterproductive, especially if your goal is to explain why they're wrong. But what can I say. You have, apparently for years, just been outraged that some people on the internet are incorrect about something. You think it's normal and reasonable to spend years angrily mocking them, making gay jokes about them, photoshopping their pics, digging up info on them, etc, in response. Me? I shrug and say, "Well, as near as I can tell, they're wrong." If I've got time and interest, I explain why. You should try my method. It's more, uh. Sane. They can’t compete. That means something to me, and it should mean something to you. It would not be a fair fight, and everybody knows it — especially the blog owners. On the core justifiability of an ID inferences? Not at all. On various particular claims? Again, no. You seem to mistake the ability to argue for an eternity and camp at the computer for weeks on end to be 'waxing someone in a debate', or worse than that, 'being certain that you're right'. Look at you in this very response: you went at me with a whole lot of assumptions that just fell entirely flat. You're clueless, but that doesn't keep you from ranting. But there's one thing you all collectively have going for you: the ability to obsess, clearly evidenced by just how long you guys have managed to keep a long, drawn out, angry hatefest going in a forum thread. Even if you get nailed in a discussion, you subscribe to the age-old internet method: just keep arguing and yelling and equivocating for however long is necessary, until everyone is tired and moves on. But hey, if it means that much to you, keep on telling yourself that. Whatever you have to do to get you through the night. Do you suppose any one of the mockers wouldn’t put down all the mocking for a chance for a totally serious knock-down on the merits? Not really. You said it yourself - for you and your group, all that really matters is the anger at this point. What's more, you're running with the laughable assumption that you'd get a 'serious knock-down' with... uh, some pseudonym-using guy on the internet. You know, reaching for the stars and all. But, in the likely event that you couldn't pull off a that serious knockdown? If you lost or, hell, just pulled even? Then all hell would break loose. Can't be allowed to happen, after all - look how emotionally invested you all are. The whole thing would get scuttled, just as it gets scuttled on just about any petty craphole of a blog. But it hardly matters, because it's not as if I have some personal animus against any of you. I think your forum is pathetic, but really, there's no shortage of such places online. At most, it's sad. But there's also no shortage of critics - some of them even respectful and considerate - online. Like I said with Eric, that's what it comes down to - I don't waste my time with people I don't respect, and I think others should follow the same method. I don't bother arguing with them, and I don't bother mocking them - certainly not for freaking years, and so personally. I just move on. By the way, eigen - could you ever move on? Or do you see yourself, in ten years, still doing this exact same thing? Still logging into your craphole to yell about how much you hate such and such ID person, or watch your friends scream about how such and such is probably gay, etc? I mean, perhaps we can use some science here. Let's see how long you've been doing exactly that, how many times a week, and then project whether the trend will continue. Do you think you'll like what the result of that study would be?nullasalus_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
11:53 PM
11
11
53
PM
PDT}

@StephenB,
To me, the most uncivil thing one person can do is to waste another person’s time.
I agree this. This is also the basis for the "meta-criticism" of UD, the incivility that makes locker-room haranguing a minor faux pas by comparison. UD is expert at wasting critics time. Ask any of the critics, they will tell you that it is an impossible task to get UDers to sustain a serious, substantial exchange over the "methodology of ID" as science. Your posts are a very good example, predictably poisoning that well with "worldview" style critiques, and all the cultural phenomenon stuff you say you want to keep separate. If I'm wrong, maybe you can link me to your last substantial exchange with a critic on this methodology. I think I can link you to a LOT of the "cultural phenomenon" you put out. None of which I begrudge, if only ID would come clean about what they are trading on and advancing. It's just a waste of time to try and engage IDers here on "methodology". My taunt is "let's do the math", and it works, it just results in "cultural phenomenon" or crickets. I'm interested to apply the concepts, to deploy operational definitions, and really put IDs to an objective test. Many other critics are much more patient and articulate on this than I. And all are stymied, over and over and over. So much time wasted, so much disingenuous dialectic. KF will by by momentarily to work on my 'worldview correction', scratching the itch for that that he regular has, but proving my point. For the most part, our critics do not understand the ID paradigm they presume to critique and, worse, they are not even interested in learning about it. How often must we explain that ID science does not depend on religion? How many times should we have to point out that ID does not affirm or deny evolution?” How often must we differentiate between the ID “movement,” which is a cultural phenomenon, and ID science, which is a methodology for observing data and drawing inferences? All this information is readily available. People who keep conflating these issues, either out of willful ignorance or malice, are uncivil because they are stealing our time and cheating us out of the opportunity to fine tune our knowledge through meaningful dialogue. Well, I can challenge you day in and day out to actually put something out there that is substantial on this "methodology" that you talk about it, and defend it, and define real tests for possible falsification and validation. And I'd be gratified to see that. But from you in particular, and UD generally, it's just talk. No one has the courage, or preparation or insight to ACTUALLY DO THAT and face cogent ciriticsm on it. All we get is evasion, pedantics, equivocation, or crickets.eigenstate_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
11:51 PM
11
11
51
PM
PDT}

@WIlliam J Murray,
Because that’s really how someone should present an argument about ID to friends and family – getting mileage out of emotional, manipulative rhetoric.
I spent a good amount of time as a Christian trying to "learn" ID. As a TE, some science, I thought that would plug the vacuum left when the trainwreck that is creationism was discovered. But I couldn't find anything to learn. The more technical and scientific it got in terms of presentation, the more vacuous ID was. The real pull, the real substance I was able to garner from ID was its culture war polemics and apologetics machinery. As an atheist, years later, my conviction is what it was then. ID is vacuous. It's a fail in terms of scientific substance."Not even wrong" kind of fail. ID, properly understood -- if you were going to engage in serious analysis of ID as a movement -- is an activist movement militating against atheism/materials first and foremost, and against evolution as the scientific "accomplice" to the crime. ID is not really "for" anything, and certainly not anything scientific. It's against what it sees as the onslaught of science, and the materialist that is not entailed by it, but that just seems to "come along" with it. That's not a manipulative ploy, that's a serious, working hypothesis that explains to a good extent, the dynamics of this blog. So when my Christian friends tune in, to see me get embarrassed by the ID experts here, they don't see anything much at all of substance around science, information, biology, etc. Exceptions exist -- I can tip my hat to Genomicus, who I disagree with but understand to be quite serious about forging some kind of beachhead scientifically for parts of the ID argument. But again, the exception that proves the rule. So the charge is an earnest, straightforward one, ID as vacuous, scientifically. If that's right, then the "onlookers" should see a lot of handwaving, evasion, emotional and manipulative rhetoric steering the topic AWAY FROM SCIENCE. Lots of appeals to "true science" being about the "search for truth", and the like. And of course, heavy-handed and hypocritical censoring and banning. These are the signals of ID as a activist movement against materialism first and evolution second (it's useful occasional to be able to say, when pressed "ID isn't really against common descent", etc.). But the tenor and the content speak for themselves. It would be GREAT if the ID movement took itself seriously. It's weird that ID's critics give ID a lot more credit than it's purveyors do. They don't undertand so well, like Mr. Arrington does, that this is a righteous crusade against godless materialism, and sciencey talk is bits of chaff jettisoned when convenient to draw away incoming missiles. If UD did take ID seriously as science, if Genomicus wasn't conspicuously alone, a kind of haplessly earnest guy who's not in on the secret in ID circles, there would be a wealth of interesting and educational debate. ID COULD push science, even as just a complainer, a naysayer, in positive directions. But it's work, and science is hard, painstaking, careful business. Instead, UD makes do with FSCI/O, and concentrates on faux-martyrdom and "gosh I just decided one day my hardcore atheism wasn't working for me, and looking around, God as creator just made sense". I don't need to manipulate that kind of stance toward the world, at all. It does all the damage it does to itself, by itself.eigenstate_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
11:31 PM
11
11
31
PM
PDT}

The UD blog does not exist so that anti-ID partisans can push their personal agendas. To be sure, visitors are welcome to comment, rattle our cages, or even bore us, but they are not welcome to make demonstrably false statements or indulge in reckless character assassinations just for the hell of it. At the very least, they should prepare themselves for dialogue by learning something about the subject matter before they start posting. Too often, our adversaries not only fail to familiarize themselves with the FAQ questions, they refuse to study them even after being called out for their preparatory deficiencies. As such, they never acquire the minimum amount of information needed for a meaningful and rational discussion. I know this is true because of the texture and quality of some of the comments we have to entertain. If all those who were recently banned had prepared themselves in this modest way, I suspect that some of them would have been too valuable to be sent packing. On the contrary, they spent most of their time, obfuscating, evading the main issue, and setting strawmen on fire. This gets old. To me, the most uncivil thing one person can do is to waste another person’s time. For the most part, our critics do not understand the ID paradigm they presume to critique and, worse, they are not even interested in learning about it. How often must we explain that ID science does not depend on religion? How many times should we have to point out that ID does not affirm or deny evolution?” How often must we differentiate between the ID “movement,” which is a cultural phenomenon, and ID science, which is a methodology for observing data and drawing inferences? All this information is readily available. People who keep conflating these issues, either out of willful ignorance or malice, are uncivil because they are stealing our time and cheating us out of the opportunity to fine tune our knowledge through meaningful dialogue.StephenB_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
11:19 PM
11
11
19
PM
PDT}

Nullasus
This isn’t a case of all critics being lumped into this category. We’re talking about a group of people who all know each other and collude, and really, that thread speaks for itself.
Is this meant to include Lizzie? As far as I know she has never contributed to the debate at antievolution.org. She is certainly not a regular. She has been extraordinarily polite and diligent - the only regulars to match her in politeness are vj and gpuccio.markf_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
10:58 PM
10
10
58
PM
PDT}

@nullasalus,
There’s this pattern I’ve noticed, where people who invoke Orwell against others are usually the ones best exemplifying the very things they’re accusing people of. I’m sure if an updated version of 1984 is released, there will be parts where some guy fully and obviously aligned with Big Brother runs around accusing everyone of being Orwellian.
That's the thing, it's just a surreal conversation. You think, it appears, that science is "Big Brother". For all that science might have to worry about or apologize for, it's not being Big Brother. There is no Pope, no tyrant jealous God, no military standing ready, no security infrastructure. None of that can work for science, even if they wanted. The epistemology doesn't support it. The models either work, or they don't. The predictions either pan out, or they don't. This is the kind of conspiracy theorist mindset that drags a potentially serious discussion toward silly. If you think it's controlling, per chance, over at AtBC, go sign up and see if you get censored or banned. For whatever faults you want to assign, they will let you speak, and have enough respect for the process to let you have your say. And it's not altruistic, much of that. Letting you go on, or whoever, just becomes more evidence in support of the critics thesis. The kind of tactics embraced here are only effective with different goals -- to prop up, artificially protect, and use "state powers" -- analogous, the administrative controls here, to enforce censorship, and silence critics. Again, reading you in context, worried about a chaotic, somewhat anarchic "cesspool" and then worrying about "Big Brother", in THIS thread. I don't think you're seeing the big picture here.
The problem here, eigen, is that I’ve provided a link right to AtBC. Anyone can go see what goes on there. Anyone can see almost all of the people in question (including the ones you insist are very civil and reasonable) cheerfully ignoring, encouraging or engaging in mockery of people they disagree with here, ranging from fisting jokes to gay jokes (so very enlightened) to worse. They can see the very people who scream about unjust treatment engaging in behavior that – I stand by this, and frankly man, you know it’s true – makes anything that has gone on on UD, ever, pale in comparison.
I do know it's true. My eyes are open. My point is for all the sober reckoning we might do about that, it's really a trifle compared to the kind of nasty that gets bred here. Deeper, much more obnoxious and FU than any of that. But its for a righteous cause, you're doing the Lord's work after all. It's like your slaughtering the Midianites, after all. It's just sort making the world suck in a way that fisting jokes never could, for anyone who can beyond a Church Lady kind of prudishness. I have a homosexual son, so I don't take homosexual jokes lightly. But for all the absence of gay jokes here, After the Bar Closes is a place my college age son would be welcomed, treated well, and supported like a human being. This place is the cesspool for people who are homosexuals, and if you'd like, I could get him to post here to confirm. Worshipping the God you worship is a much deeper and profound offense, a kind of wickedness no "HOMO" jokes can touch. So, if you want to talk about decency toward homosexuals, you are in the gutter hanging with the culture you do, right here.
You say you’re ‘getting mileage’ here by complaining about what you think is an unfair admin policy. Wonderful – I’m getting mileage here by pointing out just who the critics are, how they behave, and how the supposedly “rational, civil” critics tolerate and encourage the behavior. How extremely personal they make it all. Doubly so, since various things that used to be harshly complained about – goodness, DaveScot called someone a name! and Dembski photoshopped a silly picture of Dawkins! – go on there. I’ve got you beaten on distance by far.
OK, well everybody's happy, then, I guess. But you've not really grasped the charge I'm making, if you think it has anything to do with DaveScot burning someone or Dembski's fart jokes. Arrington's publishing of DrREC's personal info was execrable, but even so, it doesn't really go to the real problem here. That's just pettiness, indulging in viciousness. The real problem here has is much broader than that. Arrington should apologize, but even if so, that's really not the problem Arrington brings to the table, here. If you're pointing at that, you're getting mileage out of ennui. There's a great object listen here regarding how people fool themselves, try to fool others, and will do anything to keep the "co-fooled" fooled along with them. Dissonance loves company, and all that. Yeah, I know, Darwinism is going to come crashing down any month now...
…You’re coming off as a pretty bad BSer. Especially since it’s not like what goes on in your cesspool of choice is limited only to the grand and terrifying Barry Arrington and his horrendous act of banning people. Showing up here and saying what amounts to, “Well, you see, we thought the arguments provided were poor, and that’s why intellectually we feel justified – nay, obligated – to make fisting jokes about people associated with the Discovery Institute.” is inane. Yes, yes, I know, you’re stating it in a very calm manner, you’re struggling to communicate pristine composure. But sorry, the end result is still inanity, and it’s not worth taking seriously. Just because someone talks calmly, even cheerfully, doesn’t mean they’re really worth engaging.
You're either engaging in a Church Lady reflex here, or you are simply being shallow in looking at the dialectic here. There is a serious effort, spread all over your blog, to engage and discredit ID ON THE MERITS. There is not a corresponding response, on the whole, with a few notable and laudable exceptions that unfortunately do nothing more than prove the rule. No one feels obligated to mock. It's just all that's left. That's all there is left, in many cases. Over and over, this blog clowns the subject of ID. One one level, it's pragmatically satisfying -- people see what's happening. But it's debasing as a spectacle.
…You’re coming off as a pretty bad BSer. Especially since it’s not like what goes on in your cesspool of choice is limited only to the grand and terrifying Barry Arrington and his horrendous act of banning people. Showing up here and saying what amounts to, “Well, you see, we thought the arguments provided were poor, and that’s why intellectually we feel justified – nay, obligated – to make fisting jokes about people associated with the Discovery Institute.” is inane. Yes, yes, I know, you’re stating it in a very calm manner, you’re struggling to communicate pristine composure. But sorry, the end result is still inanity, and it’s not worth taking seriously. Just because someone talks calmly, even cheerfully, doesn’t mean they’re really worth engaging.
Well, suit yourself. But people aren't stupid, over there or here. I know the 'OMG look at the fisting jokes' appeal is going to work on some demagogic level, but it doesn't fool people who are really following along. It's just another cop out, another lazy, and frankly cowardly way to avoid the real areas of conflict.
Let me cap this off with the following: I’m a TE myself. I find various ‘popular’ critiques of evolution silly at a glance, at least given my limited knowledge. The SLOT argument just seems wrongheaded, for example.
Wrongheaded? Are you kidding me??? That's exactly what I'm trying to point to. That's a clown's answer. If you don't know full well how ignorant that argument is, demonstrably, objectively, then you should be bothering to engage all the topics you engage on. And if you do get it, then, well, this is you saying FU to all the people who know you know better, and who know you know WE know better. And I’ve gotten into arguments on this very site, with admins, on various topics – my not thinking ID qualifies as science (given certain caveats), what I think has been unfair depictions of TEs, misunderstandings of various arguments and positions, etc. Hell, I’ve even gotten some ID proponents pretty ticked at me. But somehow it never occurred to me that I had some intellectual obligation to act like your peers over at AtBC. Even with Liddle, who I have a very low opinion of, I left things at telling her flatly that I thought she was intellectually dishonest, and leaving her to her own devices. Well, again, suit yourself. That's fine. But at least you can "leave her to own devices" and say your piece or whatever and leave it as something like a grown up might say well enough to. But if so, you're still hobnobbing around with petulant, spoiled children -- hostile and childish in a way that makes the worst you could link to at AtBC look trivial by comparison. It's bad enough to do that, but then to pretend that's not what's happening, people realize what they are dealing with, eventually.
Apparently, I wasn’t meeting my intellectual obligations. According to you, if I truly thought her intellectual honesty left something to be desired, I should have skulked around for some pics of her or even her family and photoshopped in some crude sexual antics of them to post on a public forum. Or perhaps that would be too good for her, right? At the very least you would have said such a response was justifiable, even if you disagreed, yes?
No, I just think you are being petty and prudish as a way to avoid the real FUs that emanate from this blog. It's handwaving and crocodile tears, I think. I'm not for going all Dembski (or insert whoever you think is the evil photoshopper at AtBC here), I'm for someone on the pro-ID side having the guts to act like a grown up and take a risk (and it is a risk) on a serious conversation between educated adults. And if the conversation goes to "intellectual honesty", that's a good indicator that you (or I) are going off track. That's line of pursuit, when you are trying to talk about a substantial topic is poisoning the well. Witness KairosFocus' obsession with trying to correct the worldviews of his guests. It's just noise, and toxic noise, all that. A fog a critic has to be very determined and patient to get through. Here's the thing -- pick your three most obnoxious (in your view) posters at AtBC, and put them up agains the most clean languaged managers of this blog you want, or add yourself, and the "cesspool" trio will absolutely wax whoever you pick here, because the management and "heavies" here just don't know what they are talking about. They can't compete. That means something to me, and it should mean something to you. It would not be a fair fight, and everybody knows it -- especially the blog owners. Do you think Arrington could keep up, even a little bit with Liddle? Or, who -- I'll have to go look at these pictures? Erasmus? I don't know him, but no doubt in my mind, if both had to engage in a fair fight of ideas on the facts, evidence, worldviews, whatever you want regarding substance, it's not even competitive. Even Dembski himself has shown he only fights from playing fields he controls, and even then can't be bothered to play some nominal defense like any good sport would. Look, if you can bring the serious thought, and really engage on the issues, I don't give a rip about the mocking or satire, or any of that. I'd prefer to get beyond it, but it's not a big deal, if you've got some chops. You've earned it, in a way. But if you are KairosFocus, or Joe, or Gil, all hat, and no cattle, so to speak, the mockery is different. If that's all you've got to contribute, and can't won't engage, that's WAY more damning than indulging yourself as sport (even if it's vicious and petty), but sport on the side, when you can really bring it in a serious way if you are asked to. It's the hubris of the mocking lightweight vs. the mocking of the one who has got a serious game. I won't say no mocking isn't the best option, but the first two are not equals.
Here’s the short version: AtBC is a cesspool. Again, any lack of civility or fairness you can accuse UD of fostering, AtBC outdoes in spades – and has for years. All I need to do is link to that forum to make that point, and when your best defense is ‘Yes, well, we feel intellectually obligated to act that way and tolerate it’, you’re not worth taking seriously. You’re just, transparently, trying to be the good, thoughtful-sounding cop to the bad cops. I have no idea what triggered these bannings, nor did I have any input in it. But I think when critics engage in that level of putrid behavior, or openly tolerate it, there’s no more conversation to be had with them.
That's the easy way out, the Church Lady response. Do you suppose any one of the mockers wouldn't put down all the mocking for a chance for a totally serious knock-down on the merits? They would relish it. It just won't happen, because both sides know what would happen. If you go over there and sign up, I'm sure you'd immediately get a thread just for your complaints/issues, and it would be excruciatingly civil just to deny you lazy cop-out escapes. Doesn't that make sense? That's available right now, but I'm not holding my breath, because the cesspool complaint is a ruse, another way to keep any kind of real back and forth, where both sides have to support and defend, from taking place.eigenstate_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
10:43 PM
10
10
43
PM
PDT}

"And finally, whoever’s doing the photoshopping over there really needs a few classes. It’s not even very good." It's that TWT guy. If you think AtBC is vile, you should see TWT's blog. Not just one thread, but his whole blog is dedicated to UD, and he apparently posts at AtBC as well. He pretty much stalks the internet seeking as much personal info on UD folks as he can find, and spends (apparently) his entire day maintaining his blog; for which, after a whole year has only succeeded in gaining a total of 3 members, and most threads have no comments. You talk about obsession? Oh you didn't?CannuckianYankee_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
08:59 PM
8
08
59
PM
PDT}

Eric, Here's the problem: I think that, yes, it does address the question of whether someone should be banned on this forum. I'm not sitting here arguing 'Oh look, those guys on a completely different forum that has nothing to do with this site and this topic behave horribly, let's hold that against them.' I think someone could make an argument along those lines - to use a very extreme example, if I knew someone frequented a child porn site, I'd want their asses gone and shunned even if the site were legal in their country - but that's not the argument, much less the comparison, I'm making here. Instead I'm pointing out that the critics have something in common. All of them are members of a very small, public forum whose members hold personal animosity towards most, maybe all, of the people they discuss with here. Again - go have a look at the thread I pointed at. Browse through it. We're talking decade-old grudges, people ranting and raving and insulting others, photoshopping pics, personal threats, the works. Not just disagreement, but hatred. And it's all tolerated, engaged in, and/or encouraged. No, I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to turn a blind eye to that kind of behavior and pretend everything is okay and try to have a civil conversation until someone snaps. I think it's entirely reasonable to say "You know what? I don't need to give the time of day, much less a platform, to a person who goes at me quite like this. Get lost." And I think the same goes for people who tolerate and encourage that kind of behavior. This isn't mere disagreement. This is stuff made personal, and frankly, there's some pretty irrational stuff over there. That's the short of it: mutual respect. If that's not there - if there's a complete and utter lack of respect on one end, even if it's shown only on another public site - then to hell with it. There's no shortage of people willing to argue about just about anything on the internet, so if debate is important, you may as well hold out for someone who doesn't collapse into a ranting fit of expletives, mockery and insults when your name comes up elsewhere. And by the way, that's a two-way street. The problem is, it's a pretty one-sided affair at this point. Again I say, check out the thread, note the behavior, note the utter lack of anyone criticizing it - and note that this was taking place long, long before any bans came into play.nullasalus_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT}

It sure is a frustrating experience to get banned, as you apparently know, but Arrington’s got a karma problem. He can wield the ban hammer as he likes, but in doing so like this, he has outed himself, and his blog as the verifiable “first punch thrown”, the party that began acting in bad faith. That’s really fine with me, I’m getting mileage out of this with several friends and family who are Christians and pro-ID, and who suppose I should come here and engage, and maybe be persuaded toward a more positive view of ID.
Because that's really how someone should present an argument about ID to friends and family - getting mileage out of emotional, manipulative rhetoric.William J Murray_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
08:17 PM
8
08
17
PM
PDT}

eigenstate, It’s like a moment from an Orwell novel There's this pattern I've noticed, where people who invoke Orwell against others are usually the ones best exemplifying the very things they're accusing people of. I'm sure if an updated version of 1984 is released, there will be parts where some guy fully and obviously aligned with Big Brother runs around accusing everyone of being Orwellian. The problem here, eigen, is that I've provided a link right to AtBC. Anyone can go see what goes on there. Anyone can see almost all of the people in question (including the ones you insist are very civil and reasonable) cheerfully ignoring, encouraging or engaging in mockery of people they disagree with here, ranging from fisting jokes to gay jokes (so very enlightened) to worse. They can see the very people who scream about unjust treatment engaging in behavior that - I stand by this, and frankly man, you know it's true - makes anything that has gone on on UD, ever, pale in comparison. You say you're 'getting mileage' here by complaining about what you think is an unfair admin policy. Wonderful - I'm getting mileage here by pointing out just who the critics are, how they behave, and how the supposedly "rational, civil" critics tolerate and encourage the behavior. How extremely personal they make it all. Doubly so, since various things that used to be harshly complained about - goodness, DaveScot called someone a name! and Dembski photoshopped a silly picture of Dawkins! - go on there. I've got you beaten on distance by far. I mean, really, when you say stuff like this... Arrington laments the incivility, and then puts on a spectacular display demonstrating why mocking and harshly uncivil taunts and denunciations are too good for him, and to a sobering extent, this blog. ...You're coming off as a pretty bad BSer. Especially since it's not like what goes on in your cesspool of choice is limited only to the grand and terrifying Barry Arrington and his horrendous act of banning people. Showing up here and saying what amounts to, "Well, you see, we thought the arguments provided were poor, and that's why intellectually we feel justified - nay, obligated - to make fisting jokes about people associated with the Discovery Institute." is inane. Yes, yes, I know, you're stating it in a very calm manner, you're struggling to communicate pristine composure. But sorry, the end result is still inanity, and it's not worth taking seriously. Just because someone talks calmly, even cheerfully, doesn't mean they're really worth engaging. Let me cap this off with the following: I'm a TE myself. I find various 'popular' critiques of evolution silly at a glance, at least given my limited knowledge. The SLOT argument just seems wrongheaded, for example. And I've gotten into arguments on this very site, with admins, on various topics - my not thinking ID qualifies as science (given certain caveats), what I think has been unfair depictions of TEs, misunderstandings of various arguments and positions, etc. Hell, I've even gotten some ID proponents pretty ticked at me. But somehow it never occurred to me that I had some intellectual obligation to act like your peers over at AtBC. Even with Liddle, who I have a very low opinion of, I left things at telling her flatly that I thought she was intellectually dishonest, and leaving her to her own devices. Apparently, I wasn't meeting my intellectual obligations. According to you, if I truly thought her intellectual honesty left something to be desired, I should have skulked around for some pics of her or even her family and photoshopped in some crude sexual antics of them to post on a public forum. Or perhaps that would be too good for her, right? At the very least you would have said such a response was justifiable, even if you disagreed, yes? Here's the short version: AtBC is a cesspool. Again, any lack of civility or fairness you can accuse UD of fostering, AtBC outdoes in spades - and has for years. All I need to do is link to that forum to make that point, and when your best defense is 'Yes, well, we feel intellectually obligated to act that way and tolerate it', you're not worth taking seriously. You're just, transparently, trying to be the good, thoughtful-sounding cop to the bad cops. I have no idea what triggered these bannings, nor did I have any input in it. But I think when critics engage in that level of putrid behavior, or openly tolerate it, there's no more conversation to be had with them. And finally, whoever's doing the photoshopping over there really needs a few classes. It's not even very good.nullasalus_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PDT}

Well, I've never been over there before now, but may check it out. I don't dispute that there are other forums lacking in rational, civil debate and respectful dialogue. However, pointing to such forums and noting their banal tenor, perhaps rightly so, nevertheless doesn't seem to address the question of whether someone should be banned on this forum. I'm suggesting that banning DrREC for his comment at the beginning of this thread seems heavy handed. I haven't been around much lately and certainly may have missed something, so if DrREC has engaged in other activities clearly in contravention of UD site policy, then I withdraw my comment. Otherwise, I'd hope that the moderators would welcome him to continue engaging here.Eric Anderson_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PDT}

@nullasalus, It's like a moment from an Orwell novel to understand that you think posters like champignon and Elizabeth Liddle (and Diffaxial, Rob, Seversky, Nakashima and many others before them, and I'm sure many after) are not interested in rational, civil debate when both of them have just been banned. Anyone who's read Lizzie at all can see the black-is-white bombast in claiming that SHE wasn't interested in rational discussion, and that Arrington, or whoever banned her WAS interested. It sure is a frustrating experience to get banned, as you apparently know, but Arrington's got a karma problem. He can wield the ban hammer as he likes, but in doing so like this, he has outed himself, and his blog as the verifiable "first punch thrown", the party that began acting in bad faith. That's really fine with me, I'm getting mileage out of this with several friends and family who are Christians and pro-ID, and who suppose I should come here and engage, and maybe be persuaded toward a more positive view of ID. I like what they see. At times, I have seriously wondered if some of the managers of this blog are part of a super-fiendish "black flag" operation perpetrated by cunning evolutionists; Arrington pretty much embodies the worst and most cutting narratives ID critics have to offer (speaking of which, by the way, is Clive Hayden still in management for this blog?). No, I don't think so, but when the science crowd has Arrington, Dodgen, KairosFocus and O'Leary as the vanguard on the other side, well, things are going to be childish in terms of the bickering and the mod/banning policies, but the broader message is pretty devastating to ID: ID is vacuous, a culture war cult that cynically uses "sciencey" prose and buzzwords to avoid the stigma that has now firmly been attached to more traditional forms of creationism. The harsh reality from all that is that at the end of the day, people of deeply antagonistic views, but good will, and a commitment to a "fair fight" can "get along" for the good of everybody. It's interesting, contoversial, educational. But at some point, it becomes clear that bad faith is what's driving the interaction. There comes a point where all there is to do is mock. Even that takes the other party more seriously than they take themselves. We have people here correcting critics on the Second Law of Thermodynamics, insisting that biolology and/or evolution is a violation of 2LoT. Multiple clear and patient efforts were launched to correct the nonsense. Instead, the nonsense gets doubled down. And doubled down again. What's more, none of the IDers who know better can be bothered to stick up for some sanity on this. There's really nothing more you can do with that kind of proud ignorance and incorrigibility than to mock it. Mocking it isn't even half as hostile as the prideful ignorance. It's a lost cause as a matter of knowledge and science, either way. Why keep posting, then? Well, the incorrigible aren't the target. It's good just to put good clear scientific thinking on the record. It shames by example, without shaming, as Elizabeth has done with devastating grace and patience, here. If Arrington is not aware, though, it is childish outbursts and self-indulgences like this latest display that not only engender the mocking -- the hopeless understanding that Arrington is beyond the pale -- it necessitates it. Arrington laments the incivility, and then puts on a spectacular display demonstrating why mocking and harshly uncivil taunts and denunciations are too good for him, and to a sobering extent, this blog.eigenstate_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
07:18 PM
7
07
18
PM
PDT}

Those comments, juxtaposed with DrRec’s banning, are the basis for my question, “What’s the principle?”
Why would you expect that such events should be governed by any principle?William J Murray_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT}

I’m not sure how you manage to rise above the intellectual shackles that grip us lesser mortals,
Beginning with fundamental premises that are necessary to such "rising above" would be a good start, such as the premise of libertarian free will and the capacity to successfully employ it. Otherwise, we're just dogs barking at each other in a pool of materialist equivocation.
To me, one fundamental distinction is the ‘text’. You are given a manual that last changed so long ago it is as if set in stone.
You have made an incorrect assumption. I have no such text. This is why assumptions and premises are so important; when they are incorrect, they habitually lead to the same erroneous conclusions.
But you have a compelling reason to make that effort: salvation.
Yet another erroneous assumption.
The ‘text’ of science may be hard to shift sometimes, but shift it will, if data or better interpretation forces it. But the consensus is a consensus for a reason, and ideology is far from compelling as a basis for that reason.
Ideology is the basis for every interpretation.
There is a curious implication in your post that scientists are not to be trusted with their own data. They formulated the hypothesis, carried out the experiment to test it, and presented it to their peers at conference or for publication … but it needs dispassionate examination by … ooh, let’s say a lawyer or a mathematician, unfamiliar with the field – before we can really interpret it correctly!
It's not a matter of trust. It's a matter of recognizing glaring logical flaws the argument of scientists that stem from fundamentally erroneous assumptions. It doesn't require a Ph.D. to recognize bad logic and erroneous assumptions.William J Murray_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
06:44 PM
6
06
44
PM
PDT}

The drug is Darwinist dogma. It shuts down one's reasoning faculties.GilDodgen_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT}

http://tinyurl.com/83js6hr Be warned, it's a pretty foul thread. I mean we're not talking something like "(X) is a jerk!" and that's it. Except some NSFW images too. Really, it's kind of a famous place as far as ID critics go. Just take one look at it, compare it to anything you've ever seen on UD, and decide which has the more reasonable, less crazy population, for all its faults.nullasalus_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT}

Nullasalus, could you provide a link to the UD thread at antievolution.org I could not find itkuartus_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT}

I want to stress something here. This isn't a case of all critics being lumped into this category. We're talking about a group of people who all know each other and collude, and really, that thread speaks for itself. Go test the sincerity of people's complaints about behavior or moderation on UD, compared with what goes on at that site.nullasalus_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT}

I am of course aware that a blog owner must be prepared ruthlessly to ban the “trolls”, the crackpots, and and the obscene, without warning or notice. I said nothing about "trolls", crackpots, etc. Coyne - and frankly, most other blog owners - take an axe to pretty much anyone they dislike. I'll note again that one of the posters apparently axed had over 1000 comments here over months - that's some supreme tolerance by that standard. And yes, it sometimes takes a lot of back and forth before one side realises ther argument is being lost. Pity it didn't happen in this case, then. Just like, when the Timecube guy finally gets booted off somewhere, it says less about the strength of his argument and more about the guy himself. I'll note again: 1000+ comments. That's pretty substantial. In fact, in terms of allowing critics to speak, it's extremely tolerant. And why is an individual’s behaviour at another venue relevant? “When in Rome” and all that I don't think you understand what that phrase means. Talking up the importance of civility and tolerance in conversation in one place, and then tolerating or encouraging photoshop mockery and vile, personal insults in another place (public even), is entirely relevant. It illustrates that there's hypocrisy in play, a lack of mutual respect, and frankly it reflects poorly on someone's character. It's not like I'm citing someone's trash-talk in a game of Team Fortress 2. If I'm nice to your face, but behind your back I laugh when people make some pretty nasty jokes about you, or even make those jokes myself, should I really be surprised when you decide to kick me out of your house? And, of course, if UD were not so handy with the axe on dissenters, posters would not need to adopt sockpuppet identities. It’s a natural reaction to try and get around arbitrary censorship. No, it's actually not. It's something you're apparently used to seeing, it's something you tolerate - hell, for all I know, something you even engage in. But it's not natural. It's extremely childish, and a prime sign of a troll, a person with a vendetta, or someone with emotional problems. I've been banned from sites before (shocking I know, I'm such a nice and pleasant guy). You know what my response has been in each and every one? I left and I didn't look back. If you kick me out of your house, even if I think it's unfair, it's not a "natural reaction" to try and break or sneak back in. Maybe once it can be written off as making a reasonable mistake and letting anger get the better of a person. After that, it's a sign of emotional problems.nullasalus_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT}

I am of course aware that a blog owner must be prepared ruthlessly to ban the "trolls", the crackpots, and and the obscene, without warning or notice. I don't think those recently banned here are in those categories. And yes, it sometimes takes a lot of back and forth before one side realises ther argument is being lost. And why is an individual's behaviour at another venue relevant? "When in Rome" and all that - it's not so unusual to fit one's deportment to the local environment. If it were some kind of rule, then there is at least one poster at UD that should have been banned outright a long time ago! And, of course, if UD were not so handy with the axe on dissenters, posters would not need to adopt sockpuppet identities. It's a natural reaction to try and get around arbitrary censorship.Bydand_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT}

Eric, As I said elsewhere in this thread - have a look at the forums at antievolution.org. Go there and lurk, anyone can see the UD thread there. Decide for yourself whether you're seeing people who are interested in rational, civil debate, much less respectful dialogue. Or if, in the end, it's all one big culture war or even personal vendetta for quite a lot of them - complete with the 'civil' people largely being civil because they know they can count on their friends to be anything but.nullasalus_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT}

Barry: I have great respect for your thoughtful views and appreciate the many hours you spend raising issues and working here at UD. I think most people can see the failure of DrREC's and Elizabeth's attempts to whitewash the regular and repeated tactics employed by some in the scientific community and turn them into something more benign than the naked appeal to authority that they are. Further, I think most people realize that the world has a long history of outsiders (philosophers, lawyers, analysts, commentators, journalists, etc.) pointing out serious problems in certain fields/industries/occupations. Therefore, the idea that a non-scientist is not qualified to opine on how science operates is just absurd (and is itself perhaps a sub-category of the appeal to authority fallacy). As a result, DrREC's recent statements seem to be not only naive, but completely against the spirit of truth seeking, whether in the scientific arena or any other. I think most readers realize that DrREC and Elizabeth are either ignoring or sweeping under the rug the appeal to authority issues you appropriately raised. However, I would certainly hope that DrREC or Elizabeth or anyone else who shares similar views would not be banned. Despite what we might see as absurd arguments, silly side roads or blatant failure to consider the evidence -- and the resulting frustrations -- I think DrREC and Elizabeth have contributed significantly to the discussions and have caused all of us to be on our toes and raise our debating ability. Just a humble appeal on my part to not let a temporary frustration (or even a temporary site policy violation, if that is what is perceived) be the basis for a ban.Eric Anderson_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT}

You're lucky. The letters columns of the UK right-wing dailies don't even let me start to comment!Axel_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT}

As far as I know this is a habit unique to UD; Never been to Jerry Coyne's or... well, a tremendous number of blogs out there, have you? and it is conspicuously used on posters making arguments that ID proponents find difficult to answer. Do you realize, over the course of being here, just one of the apparently banned posters commented over 1000 times? And the rest have been around for weeks or even months? Apparently, it takes tremendous effort for critics to find any questions ID proponents have difficulty answering. I noted a site and forum where some of these banned posters are posting at and colluding on. Go judge their civility, as well as their sincerity.nullasalus_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT}

markf, I gather a number of people have been banned, some "silently". That is to say, they have not been told direct of their excommunication, but have simply found themselves unable to log on. As far as I know this is a habit unique to UD; and it is conspicuously used on posters making arguments that ID proponents find difficult to answer. It is most certainly NOT simply a question of civil conduct, since there are pro-ID posters at UD who are routinely uncivil, but unrebuked. Just why the UD managers think that ID is vulnerable to these posters is not clear. ID claims to have strong arguments in its favour, but has to ban those that argue most cogently against it? Illogical.Bydand_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT}

If you'd like things to be lively, I suggest you have a look at the antievolution.org forum. Particularly the thread relating to UD. Then do this: compared the behavior on that thread to the behavior here, by admins and posters alike. Also, notice if Liddle is outraged - outraged! - at what's going on in that thread. Or if she behaves like a good little girl who keeps her mouth shut and tolerates, or even encourages, what goes on there.nullasalus_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT}

Has Elizabeth been banned? That would be extraordinary but I can't see where it happened.markf_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT}

From Peter Griffin's link: "And me - GCUGreyArea - again! (p.s. I was also DrBot) :p" Thanks for outing that sockpuppet account.Barb_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

You may be right Jammer, but then again given the number of folks who have been...ahem...uninvited today, what are the odds that there is now some new, more strict policy in place? I mean it's one thing for the moderator(s) to take offense at a given post, point it out, and yell, "you're outta here!" It's another to just silently remove so many folk without (at least as far as I can tell) any overt reason. I'll be blunt, Jammer...what do you think of the odds of Dr. Liddle coming back are? I don't think she uses socks or pseudonyms. I don't think anyone's been as gracious and humble on this site, and yet even she's been asked to leave today. If nothing else, you have to admit that the discussions with her were for the most part enjoyable to read, but it seems even she managed to cross some line today. I think she spurred some liveliness that others enjoyed and without her and a few others, I bet that a few of those folks won't be so eager to create more socks. Maybe I'm wrong, but... I don't know Jammmer...I suspect we might find things a little less lively here for a bit. I'm just waiting to discover I can't log on anymore.Doveton_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply